Google Co-Opts Whale-Watching Boat To Ferry Employees 373
theodp writes "Purportedly intended to defuse tensions over gentrification that have led to blockades and vandalism of Google's ubiquitous shuttles (video), which make use of public San Francisco bus stops (map), Wired reports that Google is now chartering a ferry to take its workers from SF to Silicon Valley. 'We certainly don't want to cause any inconvenience to SF residents, and we're trying alternative ways to get Googlers to work,' Google explained. Inconveniencing whale-seeking visitors to The Aquarium of the Pacific, however, is apparently not considered evil. After learning that Google had co-opted the $4 million, 83-foot, 150-passenger whale-watching catamaran MV/Triumphant to ferry as few as 30-40 Googlers to work, some expressed concerns on Facebook that Google would be The Grinch That Stole Whale Watching Season (not to worry; the boat's slated to make its 'triumphant' return to Long Beach after Google's '30-day trial')."
Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
theodp, do you have any source whatsoever to actually back up your assertion that the use of the boat is intended to defuse tension?
And since when is "inconveniencing" tourists by chartering just ONE of the boats "in the fleet" considered evil, as you imply?
Moronic. (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead of peacefully letting the tech workers board somewhat environmentally friendly busses that are subjected to stringent emissions regulations, they harass google and others to the point where they have to ride a boat with NO emissions regulations to and from work? Not to mention the fuel economy of boat vs wheels is horrible.
Transportation is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
> Inconveniencing [whale watchers] is apparently not considered evil.
I don't understand what anyone involved in this debacle wants google to do. Cease to exist? Develop transporter technology? In general, complaints about gentrification seem ridiculous. You can't complain about rich people outbidding you for your home any more than you can about immigrants stealing your jobs. What do you want, an act of congress to protect your economic niche? Hope you have a lobby.
i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently if a boat is used for something besides its original purpose, no other boat can ever replace it. You know, cause boats and tasks mate for life.
I'm no free market fanatic, but it's like they're *trying* to misunderstand basic supply and demand.
Co-opted or hired? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Google didnt' co-opt the boat, they just hired it. The company that owns it and hires it out decided to take Google's offer over that of the whale-watching company who apparently didn't have a long-term contract for it's use. That's frankly one of the risks you take when you make your company's operation dependent on someone else without locking it down with an iron-clad air-tight contract: that someone else may change their mind and you're left high and dry.
"co-opted" means something else (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think "co-opted" means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure Google just paid the operator for their service.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
That was my impression too. This sounds like the equivalent of, "a company rented a van for a business trip that a family could have used for sight-seeing."
Missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the anger is misplaced in the first place but this doesn't actually address what I see as the actual gripe.
The reason people are mad a Google buses is because it enables and encourages Google employees to live in SF without paying expensive transportation costs or suffering the inconveniences of public transportation, which makes a two tiered system of those who work for a deep pocket tech companies and those who don't.
It causes an increase in demand for housing which SF building laws do little to meet on the supply side substantially raising rents.
Work for Google, be a total brogrammer, live in hip Disneyland for adults, work in a tech-burbia perpetual college bubble, at the cost of displacing less affluent locals and the destruction of culture.
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of. The protesters latched on to that as a visible and easily protestable symbol of the real problem.
It's easy to get really, really angry at a super nice charter bus that's picking up the young and well-paid tech workers from your neighborhood (perhaps that you've lived in for a decade or more) that you're about to get kicked out of because you can no longer afford the rising rents.
Is Google the new M$? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't anyone bitching about the owners of the boat letting Google use it? Becuase that wouldn't get
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, complaints about gentrification seem ridiculous.
The complaints are especially ridiculous when they come from the same nimbys that lobby against the construction of any new housing in SF.
Re:i dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection
No, that is not the objection. The protesters are primarily upset that Googlers are living in SF. It is legal for their buses to use the bus stops. Other private buses use them as well. There is minimal interference with the public buses.
if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.
Everyone benefits from more buses and fewer cars on the roads. Allowing them to use the public bus stops is a good way to encourage desired behavior that benefits everyone, and it is legal for that reason. Requiring everyone with a bus to build their own redundant infrastructure would be idiotic.
Google is acting responsible here. The protesters are idiots.
SF gentry opposes gentrification (Score:1, Insightful)
At the end of the day what I take from this is that SF is populated with frightened, hate-filled malcontents. I just hope this serves to dispel the rose-colored view of these people that so many indulge. They are not fair, friendly, open armed flower children that wish you and yours peace and freedom; they hate you and if you have the temerity to intrude on their precisely cultivated little world they won't hesitate to publically ostracize you, or worse.
One wonders if, at this point, someone in Google isn't thinking a suite in Colorado or Utah might have been a better option. I'm certain thats occurred to the employees that have to run the SF protest gauntlet every day.
Re: Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, clearly my slashdot account with excellent karma in good standing for ten years is a Google PR sock puppet.
I have a bias, just like others do. But, as it happens, I live in the city, work for a tech company in the city, and walk to work. I don't use the Google shuttle, I don't personally care what happens to it, but it's simple fact that the Google shuttle isn't the problem, isn't the cause of the problem, and isn't even a symptom of the problem; the protesters have simply selected it as a symbol.
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:2, Insightful)
gentrification
One of the many problems is they have rent control.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html
Think of it this way. Lets say you have 100 houses in a desirable area. But say 50% are in 'rent control'. Those 50 are basically off the market. The people living in them have no incentive to move as long term their price of housing is going down due to inflation. This causes the remaining 50 houses to have a much higher burden of picking up demand. Thus raising the price on them. However, this does not preclude people from moving into those remaining 50 homes. But what you will get is people with more money. They will demand higher priced goods and services as they have the cash to buy it with. The original 50 however find they no longer can buy at their local grocer. As the guy running it quickly figured out he could raise prices and sell less items for higher prices as the market will bear it.
Rent control and 'gentrification' go hand in hand. The very people rent control is meant to help it hurts. Short term (usually 1-2 years) everything is good. Long term 10-15 years not so good. In this case a large employer has moved in and is doing what most cities would give their children's eye teeth away for. Bringing in good paying high education jobs. However, long term the employees will realize they are not wanted. They will move on. They may eventually just say 'lets move the *whole* company'. Considering the way google is structured? They could pull that off. I figure they will pick somewhere in nevada or austin tx.
You can not beat the market. You can not manipulate the market on the scale most gov's do and not cause side effects. Gentrification is a side effect of rent control. These people should be getting mad at the gov of San Fransisco and California.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the residents are a micro version of those same poor displaced whale-watchers. What's happening to them is a free market economy. They rent an asset owned by someone else. That owner has an unarguable right to seek the best return on their investment: It is greatly in their interest to rent their property for as much money as they can.
Why aren't you angry at the landlords for raising rents and using the Ellis act to evict people? That's not Google's fault. Google isn't driving people out; they're just paying their employees well and adapting to their needs (in this case, providing a shuttle from SF to Redwood, since a number of employees live in SF).
Why aren't you angry at the city for not issuing housing permits for more economic high-density housing? (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/) Google isn't the one that lobbied and protested to keep the 120-year-old Victorian your 60-year-old woman lives in intact, instead of replacing it with a highrise.
Sure, it sucks that the place you lived forever is changing in ways you don't like. It sucks that residents' NIMBY-esque actions to stop that change turned out worse for them in the long run, because someone came along that's willing and able to pay more for your space than they are, and they resisted the kind of development that would've helped to make enough space for everyone.
If you don't want to be driven from "your" rented home, you have to own the place you live. If you can't afford to own it but you can afford to rent it, that means you're living in a kind of bubble: Your landlord thinks the land is worth more than what you're paying, meaning they think they can get more rent for it later, meaning at some point or another the occupant will be paying what the owner wants, whether the occupant is you or someone working for a startup that's getting paid five times what you get paid. It's a free market, and shit like this happens.
Re:Its about the bus stops ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a law against using the bus stops? (I don't live there, I truly don't know.)
I get that we're saying they're for public buses, but how are they "specifically" for public buses any more than the roads are only for public transport? Just because no other buses have used it before? It seems to me a bus stop is simply a short term stopping point for drop offs and pick ups that happens to be large enough for buses and sometimes have benches or shelters for people. Private traffic impacts the performance of all kinds of city services. It can slow down fire trucks, ambulances (not always city services, where I live they are privately owned and operated). Some cities deal with these by putting in emergency lanes that actually do have laws that enforce nobody else using them, but unless that law exists for the bus stop I don't see a problem here. Either add more bus stops or enlarge existing ones due to usage patterns, or pass a law (if it's not already passed) stating that the stops are only for publicly operated city buses and then fine accordingly.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it a Google's problem — or a Google's fault? Are you going to argue, a corporation is "evil" because it pays its employees high wages — which leads to them being able to pay higher rents?
And there is nothing wrong with it — those "kids" still have to live somewhere. Are you going to restrict their freedom — for the dubious goal of preserving "a vibrant ethnic neighborhood"?
Re:Transportation is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds to me like a failure of rent control, not a problem with Google. Either it was implemented poorly or it is a fundamentally flawed concept. You have a bunch of people who seem to feel entitled to lower-than-market living costs. Now, I agree that gentrification is a real social problem, and possibly some kind of rent control could help mitigate it - but this is a problem that the community needs to solve, not a company. While there might be some added incentive for people to live where they otherwise might not, the fact is that the main effect of the Google buses is probably of taking cars off of the road. SF was gentrifying before Google came along - it's a trend in many US cities right now. I'm glad we are talking about it, but I think Google is being singled out a bit unfairly.
Since we are talking about gentrification, I wonder if a system requiring rent-to-own contracts instead of leases would serve the same purpose? By that, I mean where every day you live in a house/apartment, you own a little more of it. When you move out, the landlord can buy you out or profit share with you. If the area gentrifies rapidly, your share of the property will be worth a lot more than you paid in and you'll gain from the neighborhood's resurgence. I'm sure there are all sorts of ill effects that I haven't considered, but I'm just throwing it out there. I'm sure some legal eagles could make it all done in tax law, if there are constitutional concerns. Seems these days that the constitution matters little if the legislation is done in the tax code.
Telecommuting? (Score:2, Insightful)
If Google's people are so friggin' smart why are they wasting all this money on buses and ferries? Keep all the employees at home, make them telecommute, and use Hangout for meetings. How hard is that???
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Careful what you wish for.
By doing that you also send the people with money away; probably not a good thing to do to your local economy. France is currently finding this out the hard way -- their prime minister thought it would be a good idea to tax the rich until either they are no longer rich, or they just flat out leave the country. He got his way alright for the most part, but it really didn't work out how he intended; that country now has some of its highest unemployment rates ever in some areas.
You know who else shared your views by the way? Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, and Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin. Their countries became pretty poor and oppressive after the glorious revolution to get rid of the rich folks.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is just finally learning the very European art of hating other people flaunting their money. The twist in this case is that googlers are not stratospherically paid, and many are just jealous that some companies take better care of their people than others.
I mean, really "hey, here's a free bus so you can be more productive." is causing unrest...
Google's reaction? "hey here's a free boat so you can still be more productive"
What do people expect Google to do? Cut salaries and build dorms in Mountain View? Outsource to China or learn worker management from Dubai? Stop trying to help their employees be happy productive people, and turn into unhappy whipped people walmart-style?
People should think before they call them evil. That boat isn't cheap, and they have no obligation to pay their people much, or help them get home from work.
Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up - as someone who moved from Australia to the US recently, this was one of the things that struck me almost immediately about most US cities. They are 'inside out' in terms of property prices/desirability.
In almost all Australian cities (and for that matter European and Asian cities), the closer you get to the CBD/downtown, the pricier property is. People want to live close to work, close to the vibrant downtown lifestyle (shops, cafes, restaurants, entertainment, nightlife etc.). Right in the urban core you have the super-expensive high-density places where the young, rich and hip want to live. Then as you go out in rings you get suburban housing of gradually decreasing price. First, the older, leafy, established suburbs with big old houses and established families that may have held the land for a long time. Expensive, because it's close to downtown while still offering detached houses rather than apartment living. Then mid-range suburbs ... then right at the outskirts of the city, the newest-built dwellings that are also generally the cheapest because they are far away. This where you'll find young families and first home buyers. They may eventually sell and move closer in once they can afford to. Or they may stay there (and eventually, these outer areas aren't as 'outer' anymore as the city expands).
But in the US it's all backwards. The areas in/close to downtown are the cheapest and no one seems to want to live there, and the expensive houses are all at the outskirts. It's kind of weird. Gives many US downtowns a kind of drab, utilitarian feeling ... a place people go to work but not live. (There are exceptions of course, NYC being the most obvious one, but sounds like SF is that way too, though I haven't been there).
The other point the parent made was excellent too - you don't want to segregate the social classes too much (either by concentrating the poor at the outskirts or in the center of the city). I used to live in Canberra, Australia, and one very noticeable thing there is that they have public housing developments (subsidized/free housing for poor people) scattered relatively evenly across all neighbourhoods. From the wealthiest to the poorest. You can easily have a block of public housing next to trendy modern townhouses or across the road from multi-million dollar ranch-style homes. This means you don't get that disconnect between social groups (and also means you don't get much crime, as you don't have these concentrated areas of desperate people where that activity can thrive)
Re: Transportation is evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whalewatching (Score:2, Insightful)
Buses + Laptops + WiFi = More hours spent working. Google offers many perks, but most of them can be traced back to getting their workers to spend more time working, whether it be free food, onsite dry cleaning or the buses. When your employees cost an average of $100/hr to employ, a perk doesn't have to save much time to be profitable.